The amount of control an engager may wish to exercise over the
performance of a task can be set out in detail in a contract.
Alternatively the contract may contain the broad outline and also a
clause, or clauses, allowing the engager to give directions as the
work is performed. But even if the right of control is not clearly
stated, it may be possible to imply such a right into the contract
(for example, the worker may be part of a team or gang which is
under the control of a manager).
In the case of Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v
Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2QB, Mr Justice
MacKenna said at p.516 in relation to the right of control:
"To find where the right resides one must look first to the
express terms of the contract, and if they deal fully with the
matter one may look no further. If the contract does not expressly
provide which party shall have the right, the question must be
answered in the ordinary way by implication."
In the later case of Narich Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of
Pay-roll Tax [1984] ICR286, counsel for Narich argued that the
greater the detail in which the way the person engaged to do his
work is prescribed by the contract, the less scope there is for
direction and control during and in the course of performance of
the work. The Privy Council rejected this argument saying:
"In their Lordships' view this argument has a paradoxical
quality about it. It matters not by what means the engagor is
contractually entitled to direct and control the manner in which
the engagee does his work. What matters is that, by one means or
another, the engagor is, as a matter of law arising from the terms
of the contract concerned, entitled to do so."
